Information about animal welfare standards and initiatives from eight European countries was collected, grouped, and compared to EU welfare standards to detect those aspects beyond minimum welfare levels demanded by EU welfare legislation. Literature was reviewed to determine the scientific relevance of standards and initiatives, and those aspects going beyond minimum EU standards. Standards and initiatives were assessed to determine their strengths and weaknesses regarding animal welfare. Attitudes of stakeholders in the improvement of animal welfare were determined through a Policy Delphi exercise. Social perception of animal welfare, economic implications of upraising welfare levels, and differences between countries were considered. Literature review revealed that on-farm space allowance, climate control, and environmental enrichment are relevant for all animal categories. Experts’ assessment revealed that on-farm prevention of thermal stress, air quality, and races and passageways’ design were not sufficiently included. Stakeholders considered that housing conditions are particularly relevant regarding animal welfare, and that animal-based and farm-level indicators are fundamental to monitor the progress of animal welfare. The most notable differences between what society offers and what farm animals are likely to need are related to transportation and space availability, with economic constraints being the most plausible explanation.
References
[1]
Seng, P.M.; Laporte, R. Animal welfare: The role and perspectives of the meat and livestock sector. Rev. Sci. Tech. OIE 2005, 24, 613–623.
[2]
Whay, H.R. The journey to animal welfare improvement. Anim. Welfare 2007, 16, 117–122.
[3]
Aparicio, M.A.; Vargas, J.D. Considerations on ethics and animal welfare in extensive pig production: Breeding and fattening Iberian pigs. Livest. Sci. 2006, 103, 237–242, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.010.
[4]
Cauldfield, M.P.; Cambridge, H. The questionable value of some science-based ‘welfare’ assessments in intensive animal farming: Sow stalls as an illustrative example. Aust. Vet. J. 2008, 86, 446–448, doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.2008.00338.x.
[5]
Animal Welfare—EU Action Plan, Evaluation and the Second Strategy on Animal Welfare. 2011. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/actionplan_en.htm (accessed on 15 February 2013).
[6]
Verbeke, W. Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Anim. Welfare 2009, 18, 325–333.
[7]
Lawrence, A.B.; Stott, A.W. Profiting from animal welfare: An animal-based perspective. The Oxford Farming Conference, 2009. Available online: www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/lawrence%2009.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2013).
[8]
Schmid, O.; Kilchsperger, R. Overview of Animal Welfare Standards and Initiatives in Selected EU and Third Countries; EconWelfare Project Deliverable 1.2; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL): Frick, Switzerland, 2010.
[9]
Schmid, O.; Kilchsperger, R. Farm Animal welfare legislation and standards in Europe and world-wide—A comparison with the EU regulatory framework. In Proceedings of the Third Scientific Conference of ISOFAR “Organic is Life—Knowledge for Tomorrow”, Namyangju, Korea, 28 September–1 October 2011; pp. 104–107.
[10]
Kilchsperger, R.; Schmid, O.; Hecht, J. Animal Welfare Initiatives in Europe; Technical Report on Grouping Method for Animal Welfare Standards and Initiatives; EconWelfare Project Final Report D 1.1; Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL): Frick, Switzerland, 2010.
[11]
De Roest, K.; Ferrari, P.; Montanari, C.; Bokma, M.; Heutinck, L.; van Reenen, K.; Kilchsperger, R.; Hecht, J.; Schmid, O.; Malak-Rawlikowska, A.; Gebska, M.; Majewski, E.; Lundmark, F.; Keeling, L.J.; Berg, L.; Scott, K.; Guy, J.H.; Edwards, S.A.; Aparicio, M.A.; Vargas, J.D.; Cava, R.; Robledo, J.; Gonzalez, F.; Prieto, L.; Illieski, V. Report on Consumers’ Attitudes towards Animal Welfare Standards Based on the Main Findings of EU and National Research Projects; EconWelfare Project Deliverable 2.1; Wageningen UR: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2010.
[12]
Ferrari, P.; De Roest, K. Report on (Dis)Advantages of Current Animal Welfare Standards for Animals, Based on the Main Findings of EU and National Research Projects; EconWelfare Project Deliverable 2.3; Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali SpA (CRPA): Reggio Emilia, Italy, 2010.
[13]
Welfare Quality？. 2009. Available online: http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone (accessed on 15 February 2013).
[14]
Hubbard, C.; Garrod, G. Development of Policy Instruments and Indicators towards the Action Plan on Animal Welfare. The Delhi Report of EconWelfare Project; Newcastle University: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2011.
[15]
Kjaernes, U.; Roe, E.; Bock, B. Societal concerns on farm animal welfare. Veissier, I., Forkman, B., Jones, B., Eds.; Welfare Quality？ Project Office: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 13–18.
[16]
Morisse, J.P.; Huonnic, D.; Cotte, J.P.; Martrenchar, A. The effect of four fibrous feed supplementations on different welfare traits in veal calves. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 2000, 84, 129–136, doi:10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00112-7.
[17]
Mattiello, S.; Canali, E.; Ferrante, V.; Caniatti, M.; Gottardo, F.; Cozzi, G.; Andrighetto, I.; Verga, M. The provision of solid feeds to veal calves: II. Behavior, physiology and abomasal damage. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 367–375.
[18]
Cozzi, G.; Brsic, M.; Gottardo, F. Main critical factors affecting the welfare of beef cattle and veal calves raised under intensive rearing systems in Italy: A review. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 67–80.
[19]
Sudweeks, E.M.; Ely, L.O.; Mertens, D.R.; Sisk, L.R. Assessing minimum amounts and form of roughages in ruminant diets: roughage value index system. J. Anim. Sci. 1981, 53, 1406–1411.
[20]
Einarsson, S.; Madej, A.; Tsuma, V. The influence of stress on early pregnancy in the pig. Anim. Rep. Sci. 1996, 42, 165–172, doi:10.1016/0378-4320(96)01516-3.
[21]
Verstegen, M.W.A.; Brascamp, E.W.; Van der Hel, W. Growing and fattening of pigs in relation to temperature of housing and feeding level. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1978, 58, 1–13, doi:10.4141/cjas78-001.
[22]
Huynh, T.T.T.; Aarnink, A.J.A.; Gerrits, W.J.J.; Heetkamp, M.J.H.; Canh, T.T.; Spoolder, H.A.M.; Kemp, B.; Verstegen, M.W.A. Thermal behaviour of growing pigs in response to high temperature and humidity. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2005, 91, 1–16, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.10.020.
[23]
Payne, C.G. Practical aspects of environmental temperature for laying hens. World Poult. Sci. J. 1966, 22, 126–139, doi:10.1079/WPS19660020.
[24]
Quinteiro-Filho, W.M.; Ribeiro, A.; Ferraz-de-Paula, V.; Pinheiro, M.L.; Sakai, M.; Sá, L.R.M.; Ferreira, A.J.P.; Palermo-Neto, J. Heat stress impairs performance parameters, induces intestinal injury, and decreases macrophage acivity in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 1905–1914, doi:10.3382/ps.2010-00812.
[25]
Brscic, M.; Heutinck, L.F.M.; Wolthuis-Fillerup, M.; Stockhofe, N.; Engel, B.; Visser, E.K.; Gottardo, F.; Bokkers, E.A.M.; Lensink, B.J.; Cozzi, G.; Van Reenen, C.G. Prevalence of gastrointestinal disorders recorded at post-mortem inspection in white veal calves and associated risk factors. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 853–863, doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3480.
[26]
Fregonesi, J.A.; Leaver, J.D. Influence of space allowance and milk yield level on behaviour, performance and health of dairy cows housed in strawyard and cubicle systems. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2002, 78, 245–257, doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00097-0.
[27]
Fregonesi, J.A.; Tucker, C.B.; Weary, D.M. Overstocking reduces lying time in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 3349–3354, doi:10.3168/jds.2006-794.
[28]
Gonyou, H.W.; Brumm, M.C.; Bush, E.; Deen, J.; Edwards, S.A.; Fangman, T.; McGlone, J.J.; Meunier-Salaün, M.; Morrison, R.B.; Spoolder, H.; Sundberg, P.L.; Johnson, A.K. Application of broken-line analysis to assess floor space requirements of nursery and grower-finisher pigs expressed on an allometric basis. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 84, 229–235.
[29]
Averós, X.; Brossard, L.; Dourmad, J.Y.; de Greef, K.H.; Edge, H.L.; Edwards, S.A.; Meunier-Salaün, M.C. Quantitative assessment of the effects of space allowance, group size and floor characteristics on the lying behaviour of growing-finishing pigs. Animal 2010, 4, 777–783, doi:10.1017/S1751731109991613.
[30]
Bessei, W. Welfare of broilers: A review. World Poult. Sci. J. 2006, 62, 455–466, doi:10.1079/WPS2005108.
Barnett, J.L.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Cronin, G.M.; Jongman, E.C.; Hutson, G.D. A review of the welfare issues for sows and piglets in relation to housing. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2001, 52, 1–28, doi:10.1071/AR00057.
[33]
Spoolder, H.A.M.; Geudeke, M.J.; Van der Peet-Schwering, C.M.C.; Soede, N.M. Group housing of sows in early pregnancy: A review of success and risk factors. Livest. Sci. 2009, 125, 1–14, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2009.03.009.
[34]
Abeni, F.; Bertoni, G. Main causes of poor welfare in intensively reared dairy cows. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 45–66.
[35]
Kilbride, A.; Gillman, C.; Ossent, P.; Green, L. Impact of flooring on the health and welfare of pigs. In Practice 2009, 31, 390–395, doi:10.1136/inpract.31.8.390.
[36]
Averós, X.; Brossard, L.; Dourmad, J.Y.; de Greef, K.H.; Edge, H.L.; Edwards, S.A.; Meunier-Salaün, M.C. A meta-analysis of the combined effect of housing and environmental enrichment characteristics on the behaviour and performance of pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 127, 73–85, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2010.09.010.
[37]
Gorden, P.J.; Plummer, P. Control, management, and prevention of bovine respiratory disease in dairy calves and cows. Vet. Clin. North Am. Food Anim. Pract. 2010, 26, 243–259, doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2010.03.004.
[38]
Brihoum, M.; Amory, H.; Desmecht, D.; Cassart, D.; Deleuze, S.; Rollin, F. Descriptive study of 32 cases of doxycycline-overdosed calves. J. Vet. Intern. Med. 2010, 24, 1203–1210, doi:10.1111/j.1939-1676.2010.0560.x.
[39]
Stafford, K.J.; Mellor, D.J. The welfare significance of the castration of cattle: A review. N. Z. Vet. J. 2005, 53, 271–278, doi:10.1080/00480169.2005.36560.
[40]
Mounier, L.; Marie, M.; Lensink, B.J. Facteurs déterminants du bien-être des ruminants en élevage. INRA Prod. Anim. 2007, 20, 65–72.
[41]
Aerni, V.; Brinkhoff, M.W.G.; Wechsler, B.; Oester, H.; Fr？hlich, E. Productivity and mortality of laying hens in aviaries: A systematic review. World Poult. Sci. J. 2005, 61, 130–142, doi:10.1079/WPS200450.
[42]
Boe, K.E.; Faerevik, G. Grouping and social preferences in calves, heifers and cows. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 80, 175–190, doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00217-4.
[43]
Babu, L.K.; Pandey, H.N.; Sahoo, A. Effect of individual versus group rearing on ethological and physiological responses of crossbred calves. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004, 87, 177–191, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.01.006.
[44]
Xiccato, G.; Trocino, A.; Queaque, P.I.; Sartori, A.; Carazzolo, A. Rearing calves with respect to animal welfare: Effects of group housing and solid feed supplementation on growth performance and meat quality. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2002, 75, 269–280, doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00319-0.
[45]
Veissier, I.; Andanson, S.; Dubroeucq, H.; Pomiès, D. The motivation of cows to walk as thwarted by tethering. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 86, 2723–2729, doi:10.2527/jas.2008-1020.
[46]
Munksgaard, L.; Simonsen, H.B. Behavioral and pituitary adrenal-axis responses of dairy cows to social isolation and deprivation of lying down. J. Anim. Sci. 1996, 74, 769–778.
[47]
Higashiyama, Y.; Nashiki, M.; Narita, H.; Kawasaki, M. A brief report on effects of transfer from outdoor grazing to indoor tethering and back on urinary cortisol and behaviour in dairy cattle. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 102, 119–123, doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2006.03.007.
[48]
Von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Weary, D.M. Review: Feeding behaviour of dairy cattle: measures and applications. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2010, 90, 303–309, doi:10.4141/CJAS09127.
[49]
Brumm, M.C.; Gonyou, H.W. Effects of facility design on behaviour and feed and water intake. In Swine Nutrition, 2nd ed.; Lewis, A.J., Southern, L.L., Eds.; CRC Press LLC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2001; pp. 499–518.
[50]
Averós, X.; Brossard, L.; Dourmad, J.Y.; de Greef, K.H.; Edwards, S.A.; Meunier-Salaün, M.C. Meta-analysis on the effects of the physical environment, animal traits, feeder and feed characteristics on the feeding behaviour and performance of growing-finishing pigs. Animal 2012, 6, 1275–1289, doi:10.1017/S1751731112000328.
[51]
Olsson, I.A.S.; Keeling, L.J. The push-door for measuring motivation in hens: Laying hens are motivated to perch at night. Anim. Welfare 2002, 11, 11–19.
[52]
Moinard, C.; Morisse, J.P.; Faure, J.M. Effect of cage area, cage height and perches on feather condition, bone breakage and mortality of laying hens. Brit. Poult. Sci. 1998, 39, 198–202, doi:10.1080/00071669889123.
[53]
Hameister, T.; Puppe, B.; Tuchscherer, M.; Kanitz, E. Effects of weaning age on behavioural and physiological responses of domestic piglets—A review. Berl. Munch. Tierarztl. 2010, 123, 11–19.
Nielsen, B.L.; Dybkjaer, L.; Herskin, M.S. Road transport of farm animals: Effect of journey duration on animal welfare. Animal 2011, 5, 415–427, doi:10.1017/S1751731110001989.
[56]
Warriss, P.D. The handling of cattle pre-slaughter and its effects on carcass and meat quality. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1990, 28, 171–186, doi:10.1016/0168-1591(90)90052-F.
[57]
Knowles, T.G. A review of the road transport of cattle. Vet. Rec. 1999, 144, 197–201, doi:10.1136/vr.144.8.197.
[58]
Warriss, P.D.; Bevis, E.A.; Edwards, J.E.; Brown, S.N.; Knowles, T.G. Effect of the angle of slope on the ease with which pigs negotiate loading ramps. Vet. Rec. 1991, 128, 419–421.
[59]
Brown, S.N.; Knowles, T.G.; Wilkins, L.J.; Chadd, S.A.; Warriss, P.D. The response of pigs to being loaded or unloaded onto commercial animal transporters using three systems. Vet. J. 2005, 170, 91–100, doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2004.05.003.
[60]
Ritter, M.J.; Ellis, M.; Bowman, R.; Brinkmann, J.; Curtis, S.E.; DeDecker, J.M.; Mendoza, O.; Murphy, C.M.; Orellana, D.G.; Peterson, B.A.; Rojo, A.; Schlipf, J.M.; Wolter, B.F. Effect of season and distance moved during loading on transport losses of market-weight pigs in two commercially available types of trailer. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 86, 3137–3145, doi:10.2527/jas.2008-0873.
[61]
Grandin, T. How to improve livestock handling and reduce stress. In Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach; Grandin, T., Ed.; CAB International: Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK, 2010; pp. 64–87.
[62]
Warner, R.D.; Ferguson, D.M.; Cottrell, J.J.; Knee, B.W. Acute stress induced by the preslaughter use of electric prodders causes tougher beef meat. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2007, 47, 782–788, doi:10.1071/EA05155.
[63]
Grandin, T. Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 56–65, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.04.022.
[64]
Guise, H.J.; Penny, R.H. Factors influencing the welfare and carcass and meat quality of pigs. 2. Mixing unfamiliar pigs. Anim. Prod. 1989, 49, 517–521, doi:10.1017/S0003356100032736.
[65]
Gosálvez, L.F.; Averós, X.; Valdelvira, J.J.; Herranz, A. Influence of season, distance and mixed loads on the physical and carcass integrity of pigs transported to slaughter. Meat Sci. 2006, 73, 553–558, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.02.007.
[66]
Averós, X.; Knowles, T.G.; Brown, S.N.; Warriss, P.D.; Gosálvez, L.F. Factors affecting the mortality of pigs being transported to slaughter. Vet. Rec. 2008, 163, 386–390, doi:10.1136/vr.163.13.386.
[67]
Averós, X.; Knowles, T.G.; Brown, S.N.; Warriss, P.D.; Gosálvez, L.F. Factors affecting the mortality of weaned piglets during commercial transport between farms. Vet. Rec. 2010, 167, 815–819, doi:10.1136/vr.c6226.
[68]
Raj, M.; Tserveni-Gousi, A. Stunning methods for poultry. World Poult. Sci. J. 2000, 56, 291–304, doi:10.1079/WPS20000021.
[69]
Gregory, N.G. Animal welfare at markets and during transport and slaughter. Meat Sci. 2008, 80, 2–11, doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.05.019.
[70]
Hubbard, C.; Garrod, G.; Keeling, L. Short List of Potential Policy Instruments to Promote High(er) Animal Welfare; EconWelfare Project Deliverable 3.2; Newcastle University: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2011.
[71]
Hubbard, C.; Garrod, G.; Keeling, L. List of Appropriate Indicators for Different Instruments; EconWelfare Project Deliverable 3.3; Newcastle University: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 2011.
[72]
Boogaard, B.K.; Bock, B.B.; Oosting, S.J.; Wiskerke, J.S.C.; van der Zijpp, A.J. Social acceptance of dairy farming: The ambivalence between the two faces of modernity. J. Agric. Environ. Ethic. 2011, 24, 259–282, doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9256-4.
[73]
Hewson, C. What is animal welfare? Common definitions and their practical consequence. Can. Vet. J. 2003, 44, 496–499.
[74]
Carenzi, C.; Verga, M. Animal welfare: Review of the scientific concept and definition. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 21–30.
[75]
Abrams, K.M.; Meyers, C.A.; Irani, T.A. Naturally confused: Consumers’ perceptions of all-natural and organic pork products. Agr. Hum. Val. 2010, 27, 365–374, doi:10.1007/s10460-009-9234-5.
[76]
Bock, B.B.; van Huik, M.M. Animal welfare: The attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. Brit. Food J. 2007, 109, 931–944, doi:10.1108/00070700710835732.
[77]
Tuyttens, F.A.M.; Vanhonacker, F.; Van Poucke, E.; Verbeke, W. Quantitative verification of the correspondence between the Welfare Quality？ operational definition of farm animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers, citizens and vegetarians. Livest. Sci. 2010, 131, 108–114, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.03.008.
[78]
Miele, M.; Evans, A. European consumers’ views about farm animal welfare. Butterworth, A., Ed.; Welfare Quality？ Project Office: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 9–25.
[79]
Napolitano, F.; De Rosa, G.; Caporale, G.; Carlucci, A.; Grasso, F.; Monteleone, E. Bridging consumer perception and on-farm assessement of animal welfare. Anim. Welfare 2007, 16, 249–253.
[80]
Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Van Poucke, E.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livest. Sci. 2008, 116, 126–136, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017.
[81]
Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Van Poucke, E.; Buijs, S.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livest. Sci. 2009, 123, 16–22, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2008.09.023.
[82]
Krystallis, A.; de Barcellos, M.D.; Kügler, J.O.; Verbeke, W.; Grunert, K.G. Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livest. Sci. 2009, 126, 46–56, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2009.05.016.
[83]
Matthews, L.R. Methodologies by which to study and evaluate welfare issues facing livestock systems of production. Aust. J. Exp. Agr. 2008, 48, 1014–1021, doi:10.1071/EA08011.
[84]
Blokhuis, H.J.; Keeling, L.J.; Gavinelli, A.; Serratosa, J. Animal welfare’s impact on the food chain. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 2008, 19, S79–S87, doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2008.09.007.
[85]
Stern, S.; Sonesson, U.; Gunnarsson, O.; Oborn, I.; Kumm, K.I.; Nybrant, T. Sustainable development of food production: A case study on scenarios for pig production. AMBIO 2005, 34, 402–407.
[86]
Harvey, D.; Hubbard, C. The Supply Chain’s Role in Improving Animal Welfare. Animals 2013, 3, 767–785.
